Rayala Ramulu, 2 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3567 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.846 OF 2007

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of

Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/accused, challenging the

judgment, dated 08.05.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.21 of

2004 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, at

Kothagudem, whereby, the judgment, dated 23.02.2004, passed in

C.C.No.82 of 2001 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu,

convicting the petitioners for the offences under Section 411 of IPC

and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to

suffer simple imprisonment for one week each, was confirmed.

2 The factual matrix that led to the filing of the present Criminal

Revision Case is that on 15.11.2000 some unknown offenders

committed theft of 150 kgs of cotton from the fields of P.W.1. In that

connection a case in Cr.No.93 of 2000 was registered on the file of

Kamepally police station under Section 379 IPC. During the course of

investigation on 10.01.2001 at about 4.00 PM P.W.9 arrested the

petitioners and in furtherance of their confessional statement stolen

cotton was seized from P.W.4 under the cover of mediators report.

3 The case was taken cognizance under Section 411 IPC and a

charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the petitioners.

During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.O.1. After full fledged trial, the trial

Court found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 411

IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.

4 Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial Court, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2004

on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, at

Kothagudem. However, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the

appeal vide judgment dated 08.05.2007. Hence the present Criminal

Revision Case.

5 Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri

Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners

vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt since the property involved in

this case i.e. cotton was not directly recovered from the petitioners.

He further submitted that the panch witness for recovery of the

property from P.W.4 turned hostile and hence the recovery is not

proved and that the complainants have not identified the property in

any identification parade.

6 Heard Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing the Respondent - State. Perused the record.

7 As seen from the record, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the farmers whose

cotton was stolen from their fields. P.Ws.4 and 5 purchased cotton

from the petitioners. P.Ws.6 is the panch witness to the scene of

offence. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for recovery of the

stolen property from P.W.4 under the cover of Ex.P.4 seizure

panchanama. P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

8 There is no direct evidence to show that the petitioners have

committed theft of cotton from the fields of P.Ws.1 to 3. It is only on

the confession of the petitioners police recovered the cotton from

P.Ws.4 and 5. The evidence of P.W.4 is that he purchased cotton

from the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were tried under

Section 411 of IPC and were convicted for the said offence.

9 Section 411 IPC says that whoever dishonestly receives or

retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the

same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to three years or fine

or with both.

10 Here in the instant case, admittedly, the stolen property was

not recovered from the petitioners nor did they possess the same at

the time of their arrest. It was only on their confession the property

was recovered from P.Ws.4 and 5.

11 In order to establish that the property recovered from P.Ws.4

and 5 belongs to P.Ws.1 to 3, the prosecution has not taken any

steps for identification of property by P.Ws.1 to 3 as stipulated under

Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. It is not the case of

P.Ws.1 to 3 that they identified the property in the Court and that

the property recovered and the property stolen from their fields is

one and the same.

12 The basic ingredients of Section 411 of IPC have not been

established in letter and spirit. No property was seized from the

petitioners directly. However, in order to bring home the ingredients

of Section 411 of IPC the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

P.Ws.4, 5 and 9. However, the investigating officer has not

established that the petitioners sold the cotton to P.Ws.4 and 5 since

no receipts to that effect have been produced. In such

circumstances it is highly improbable to believe that the cotton

seized from P.Ws.4 and 5 was sold by the petitioners only.

13 Further, as seen from the record, the matter was placed before

the village elders and the same was dodged for some days. P.W.1

lodged a complaint only thereafter as the same was not settled in the

village panchayat. It seems that there are some disputes between

the petitioners and the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, an

inference may be drawn that the case might have been foisted

against the petitioners in order to wreck vengeance. All these

mitigating circumstances also throw some cloud on the prosecution

case.

14 For the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed

to prove the guilt of the petitioners / accused beyond all reasonable

doubt. Hence the petitioners are entitled to acquittal.

15 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting

aside the judgment dated 08.05.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal

No.21 of 2004 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam,

at Kothagudem and also the judgment, dated 23.02.2004, passed in

C.C.No.82 of 2001 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu.

Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous

petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

Date: 08.07.2022 Kvsn